The AMC had earlier initiated its largest demolition drive of the last nine years. Amid the hue and cry over the move, the HC had put a stay on the demolition.
A divisional bench of the Gujarat high court comprising Chief Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice Akil Kureshi has rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by storeowners of CG Road urging the court to halt the demolition drive initiated by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC).
“It is a gross case of carrying out unauthorised construction, that too despite notices from the corporation. The petitioners (storeowners of CG Road) have no permission to put up the construction. The members of ‘Shilp’ and the owner of Nalanda Hotel have constructed four sheds and put them to industrial use,” the bench said in its judgment.
The court said that Nalanda Hotel and the members of Shilp complex had ignored and not complied with earlier AMC notices issued under section 260(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, and an order under section and 260(2) of the Act had been passed with regard to the constructions.
The AMC had earlier initiated its largest demolition drive of the last nine years, resulting in widespread opposition from storeowners and traders of CG Road and other areas.
However, amid the hue and cry over the demolition of the illegal structures, the Gujarat high court put a stay on the demolition of structures on CG Road. The members of ‘Shilp’ complex and owner of Nalanda Hotel had approached the court, alleging that the demolition was illegal. Senior advocates Yatin Oza and Shrusti Thula, the counsels for the petitioners, submitted that the storeowners had been occupying the shops for more than 20 years and had been paying property tax regularly.
The high court in its order said that permission had been granted to Nalanda Hotel for the construction of a cellar and hollow plinth for parking, where instead a restaurant and banquet hall had been built. Moreover, there was a lack of parking facilities near the hotel and, despite notices and reminders from the AMC, no alternate arrangements had been made, the court said. Regarding ‘Shilp’ complex, the division bend observed that shops in the basement of the building were being occupied, being neither authorised nor regularised.
Earlier, Oza, representing both Nalanda Hotel and ‘Shilp’, had submitted that the action of the AMC was unauthorised and that the civic body had not followed proper procedure. He further submitted that the shopkeepers should have been given reasonable opportunity to state their case before the demolition was carried out. Oza claimed that the authorities had full knowledge of building plans, and details of the constructions had been provided and had been duly sanctioned by the authorities concerned.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}